January 23rd, 2007 was as good as it gets in American politics, or as bad as it gets depending on how you want to look at it.
George Bush delivered a well worded summary of his vision for 2007. Read Transcript He began the speech with a seemingly genuine congratulatory gesture towards our first woman speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi. It was a beautiful gesture which stepped over party lines and will likely be replayed on the cable news channels for months to come (especially when they start fighting again). I felt this speech hit a lot of the right notes, and I was just about calling for his blood to be drawn when he walked into the house chamber.
There were several major flaws in Bush's "new ideas", the most notable the health care proposal. Perhaps this will encourage discussion on the issue, but Bush's proposal is radical, and favors insurance businesses more than those looking for health coverage. The most detestable portion of it, which was not really addressed in the speech is how he plans to allow people to deduct health care benefits from taxes. In order to do this he proposes to make health care benefits into taxable income. This portion was conveniently left out of the speech. This could possibly cause many employee coverage plans to become more expensive, it would further complicate the tax code, and create new taxes.... Why? Well, Bush & company want to reward their supporters just as they did with Medicare reform, a giant pay out to insurance and drug companies.
How is this a payout? Well the true root of Bush's strategy is to encourage competition between insurance companies. Ultimately his plan would try to force everyone to abandon their employer subsidized plans and support individual plans, because they'll get a bigger tax break that way. Individual plans will likely cost more, but the rebates will more than make up the difference. So in away Bush's plan is REALLY a tax break to insurers (shocker). I feel that there will be minimal competition in this arena at best over the long run. Health care is like gas for a car, in most cases every American will need it.
The real irony is that this plan will increase taxes (despite the rebates) because health care benefits will be considered as income AND spending will increase (Is it just me or does this contradict another portion of W's speech in a MAJOR way?) Increased tax revenue will likely be temporary because in several years everyone will switch to private plans which have bigger rebates. This revenue in theory is supposed to be used to provide Government subsidized health care for children. If it dries up from people switching over to non-employer provided plans can the new health care for children be supported? Probably not.
This also sounds a lot like a past proposal by another Bush which failed:
Bush Weighing Health Care Plan With Means Testing, Benefits Tax
To get a better, more clear explanation of Bush's new plan see this recent Washington Post article on Saturday's Presidential radio address:
Bush Seeks Shift in Health Coverage
Additionally Bush FINALLY cited "Global Climate Change" as a reason to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. This is great, his proposals to cut gasoline consumption by 20 % over 10 years, it's about time. That being said, subsidises for ethanol production will not solve the greenhouse gas emissions, in fact it will allow relatively the same amount of pollutants to be emitted, if not more, for the increased production of EtoH here in the U.S. This is an excellent idea to subsidize the ethanol industry, however ethanol use should be included in a greater fuel consumption statistic. His plan really does not address environmental issues, unless the hybrid manufacturing completely takes over the industry in ten years. What the plan does do, (AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY) is decreases dependency on foreign oil, and would likely revitalize the lumber industry, as well as the corn industry, for the production of fuel. It would really create a lot of new jobs, and a lot of additional industry, and this would be good for the rural areas that would be positively influenced.
A positive point in which I have no complaints is Bush's logical immigration plan which will supply additional work visas for the large Mexican population which seeks illegal temporary work in the United states. In addition to this is provision is a proposed increase in border control. Allowing more Mexican immigrants to legally work here will decrease the burden put upon the border patrol. I think it is an intelligent plan, and it is not amnesty as some hard liners believe it is. Now that the Democrats have control, hopefully this is one piece of legislation that will pass successfully.
On Iraq, Bush has an internal conviction that he is doing the right thing, and he wants us to believe in him. Its a really tough sell at this point in the game, however he was confident, direct, and honest about how he sees the battle, and why he believes we must persevere.
I think we need to try and "fix" Iraq, however I have doubts in the arbitrary 21,500 extra troops, and the lack of diplomacy. I do think W will get his chance to try his new strategy for several months before Congress cuts funding, and some of that is probably owed to this speech.
Perhaps the most brilliant moment in the speech aside from the introduction of Pelosi, was the following: "We went into this largely united -- in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq -- and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field -- and those on their way." The pairing of the new strategy with supporting troops in the field, and "those on their way" forced everyone to applaud the new troops, or risk appearing like they do not support our military. Very savvy.
THE FRESHMAN SENATOR JIM WEBB'S RESPONSE (transcript)
Jim Webb is a tremendous asset for the democratic party. The choice of this moderate senator from Virginia to deliver the response to Bush was spot on. Missing from the speech was the normal leftist, excuse me from saying so, but leftist crap. It was a well thought out, to the point speech that addressed the lack of diplomacy in the Iraq war. An effective tool he used was to evoke several former presidents (all Republicans).
"As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end. "
Webb was a bit misleading on the state of the economy, however:
Webb claims: "Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world." Apparently per ca pita wages are not at all time lows. What has happened is the rich are getting richer, which has been in the process of occurring for the past 25 years, greatly due to the strength of the stock market, and a quarter decade stretch of trickle down/supply side economics. (The Reagan Legacy) The wealthy invest in our economy by creating new business, and many invest in the world through charitable ventures. I do not see wealth as a crime, and I'm not even going to pass judgement on how the wealthy use their money. This is supposed to be a free country.
COMMENTARY ON THE STATE OF THE UNION
Hillary: Senator Clinton's interview on MSNBC was actually the best of the presidential hopefuls to comment on Bush's speech. When I say "the best" what I mean is she was the sharpest, the most eloquent, and she really knew her stuff. She made me believe that if she plays her cards well, the Democratic nomination will be her. Beyond this for the first time EVER, I felt there was a real chance Bill Clinton will be the first First Man. Some quotes regarding her response, specifically to Bush reaching over the party line:
"The proof is in the pudding""Lets see what happens"
"Lets try to get something done"
"Lets try to find common ground"
On Iraq:
"Where is the internationalization?"
"Where is the reaching out to the neighbors?"
James Carville is on board Hillary's campaign (big surprise), and while Carville is one ugly S.O.B. he is as sharp as a tack. It shows Hillary's response to the speech was overwhelmingly positive, and constructive. This is what America wants, Hillary's opponents are not on to this, and it could be a problem for them later on.
Chris Matthews claims that it will be 50:50 that she'll be the next Democrat nominee for President.
Now that I've painted Hillary's capability to mobilize in a positive light I do have a stone to flip over:
CNN debunks false report about Obama
This article alleges that Hillary dug up dirt to try to connect Obama to Islamic extremism. Apparently it alleges that he attended a fundamentalist Islamic school as a child. It has been "debunked" as the article says. Stay tuned for more of these tactics, some of them we'll know about, other perhaps we won't until the election is over. It happened when Bill ran, it will happen again, and likely prove successful.
Obama: Barack Obama was once a possible "good democrat" in my eyes, however I've come to understand that his platform is perhaps more quasi-socialist than Hillary's. I thought there was a chance he could win on his charisma, but after seeing him interviewed, directly following Hillary I don't believe there's much of a chance. He didn't interview well, he stuttered (reminds me of someone else...) He didn't seem to grasp the State of the Union's topics and simply dismissed it rather than talking about it in any detail. His tact was to be opposed and negative to nearly everything. In 8 years, perhaps Obama will be ready, but I don't think he's there yet. Perhaps we'll see him as the vice presidential candidate. Bottom line he did not stand up to Hillary... yes Hillary the ice queen, now that's saying something.
Obama did give Bush credit for his work in Africa fighting AIDS and Malaria, which he said had made a large difference, and was very commendable. I do have to give him credit for not being completely confrontational I suppose.
Edwards was interviewed, but all the Interviewer seemed to ask him about was his candidacy and lead in Iowa polls. Oh and it has been established that Edwards doesn't like the Iraq war. Good to know :D
Bush supposedly was quoted today before his speech as saying if Abraham Lincoln delivered tonight's speech, he wouldn't be able to change the public's opinion of the war. I guess that shows his conviction, for good or for bad. Lets just hope that the Commander in Chief's seemingly misguided "stategery" isn't as bad as it seems.
My DAY: WOW...... So I'm actually going to write something non-political? Go figure!
My work day was relatively productive. I managed to go in a bit early, did a couple of experiments, helped some others out, ate lunch, did some notebook work, worked on some reports and then left. I stopped by Borders and picked up the new Shins album, and a Todd Rundergrun greatest hits cd. Rundergrun was another 70s soft rock singer/songwriter (hello its me, amongst others). Haven't had the chance to listen to them, but I think I'm going to load them onto my computer now.
Yipeee it's hump day!!!! 1/2 way to the weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment